ATUL SHRIVASTAVA,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, BHARATPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1650/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-18)

Atul Shrivastava Vs. ITO A 144 Jawahar Nagar Ward 2 Bharatpur Goverdhan Gate, Near Head Post Office, Bharatpur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AFCPS 0749F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Adv. Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 15.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A), Chennai 02(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 19.09.2025under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act is bad in law being arbitrary and opposed to requirement of law.

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1650/JPR/2025 Atul Shrivastava

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1650/JPR/2025 Atul Shrivastava 5. Having noted the above facts, I have found that the AO added the cash deposit in the Bank account of the assessee, in the absence of any explanation furnished by the assessee. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished his books of accounts, purchase bills, sale vouchers and cash book, but the Ld. CIT(A) stated that they were all self- prepared documents, and rejected all of them, stating that the books of accounts were not audited as required u/s 44AD of the Act. the Ld. CIT(A) contended that the assessee has sought to substantiate his explanation with internal records prepared himself, and therefore, rejected the contention of the assessee, that the source of cash deposited was from business carried on by him. The assessee is in the business of trading of building material. 6. Noting all the above fact, I hold that the Authorities below were not justified in treating the cash deposited in the Bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs.5,05,834/- as from unexplained source. As noted above, the assessee had returned income earned from his business of trading in building material on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act. The total turnover from the said business was reflected at Rs.21,13,592/-. The AO has accepted the income as returned by the assessee. Having accepted the fact that the assessee carried on business of trading of business material and had a turnover of Rs.21,13,592/-, I see no reason to disbelieve the explanation of the assessee, that the cash deposited in his bank account emanated from his business. The assessee being a small trader with meager turnover during the year of Rs.21,13,592/-, I see no reason why the cash deposit in the Bank

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1650/JPR/2025 Atul Shrivastava account of the assessee, during demonetization of Rs.5,05,834/- should be suspected as emanating from some other source. There is no reason, why the said cash deposited cannot be attributed to the business carried on by the assessee, and considering the small volume of business carried by the assessee and being not required under law to either maintain books of accounts or to get them audited its books of accounts, the insistence of the Revenue on the maintenance of such books of accounts to validate its explanation, I hold is grossly incorrect. 7. In the light of the same, I treat the cash deposited in the Bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs.5,05,834/- as duly explained and delete the addition made to the income of the assessee. 8. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29.07.2026

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 29.07.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 1650/JPR/2025 Atul Shrivastava By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur